Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collection Lawyers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collection Lawyers

This page is an advertisement for a commercial law firm. The creator removed the {{prod}} tag, so I am nominating it here. NatusRoma | Talk 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertisement. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the spam! -- Scientizzle 23:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Didn't realize that one couldn't list a commercial entity. I have made the tone more neutral, and started adding in the law for the work they do. Wavecrasher1 00:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Commercial entities can be included (see Microsoft or Deere & Company or Lucent), the question is more Is this particular company notable in such a way as to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- MarcoTolo 00:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability and does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:CORP. It seems that this law firm doesn't do anything that any other law firm couldn't do. The title is somewhat misleading; it made me think this was an article on the generic topic of collection work by lawyers. It is unclear what purpose is served by pasting in the statutory provisions of California's law regarding attachment. Fluit 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If they're "nationally recognized", they should indicate how they are so recognized (for example, the American Lawyer's AMLAW 100 or a similar national industry periodical); if they want to draft an article on collection law, that might be useful. It looks like they've parrotted much of a California statute in the article; that's certainly not worthy of anything more than a link to the California code. Not useful. Smawnmahlau 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others --Deville (Talk) 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Arbusto 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreating a proper article, but all that's there is a disorganized mess of source material and advert. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement. Sue Anne 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.